Originally posted by Reverend J ShaftI'm definitely in the minority here but I think the 2012 team would crush the 1992 Dream Team only because I think athletes are constantly becoming stronger, quicker, more agile and just more finely-tuned all around. And that makes me think that players in their mid- to late-20s today are definitively better than those players 20 years ago. I'd say this effect would be among the least pronounced in basketball but I still think LeBron & Co. could take Jordan & Co. anytime.
My belief extends to other sports in that regard, too. I think Mike Tyson would kick the holy hell out of Ali, Ted Williams would struggle to hit .200 against today's pitching and McEnroe/Connors/Borg/etc. wouldn't rank in the top 100 of tennis players had their primes been in this era. Just my opinion.
I think not. Ali could take Tyson, beause is a smarter fighter. Tyson was all about instilling fear and then going to town on you for a quick one round knock out. You watch any Tyson fight past the third round, he usually loses. Ali created Rope a Dope. Williams probably couldn't bat .400 mainly due to the fact, he will be walked twice a game. He could still hit and hitting hasn't changed that much. Hell, his best days were probably when he was in WWII, so we have no idea how great he truly was. The tennis guys were mostly grinders and they could grind probably everyone expect maybe Feder. If anything McEnroe's antics would probably confuse the hell out of them and he would shake up their game plan. Which is why Johnny did a lot of screaming.
The problem with the 'how would old legends fare today?' is you have to set the parameters of the game. Like, if you took 1975 McEnroe into a time machine and plopped him onto center court at Wimbledon to play Federer tomorrow, he'd get smoked. However, if you would somehow have a "John McEnroe" with all his natural talent and inherent ability but just fast-forwarded by a few years and given all the modern advantages of modern players (training, equipment, etc.), then that really levels the playing field. Of course, then you could argue that this McEnroe 2.0 isn't really McEnroe.
With boxing, however, I will argue all day that Ali would beat Tyson. Post-suspension Ali would beat him because he's tougher and smarter, as Lotjx said. Pre-suspension Ali would knock Tyson out and humiliate him, since I firmly believe pre-suspension Ali was the greatest boxer of all time.
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
Originally posted by Big Bad "John McEnroe" with all his natural talent and inherent ability but just fast-forwarded by a few years and given all the modern advantages of modern players (training, equipment, etc.), then that really levels the playing field. Of course, then you could argue that this McEnroe 2.0 isn't really McEnroe.
Equipment and training will be the biggest factor for sports that use gear. The raw talent is obviously still there. It's the same when they compare stats in hockey. Goalies are better..yes because they're twice the size.
For basketball it will be mostly training and tactics. Perhaps the current batch have a somewhat better conditioning, but I assume the 92 guys could also go for an hour.
Basically I think the Dream Team will win. Too much pure talent and power. But the '12 team won't be blown out of the water. While the Dream Team has 4-5 guys who could easily score 40+ points, there's only so much baskets you get to try and make in a game. So not all of them will reach scores like that. And the '12 team might have a few less guys with that game-dominating ability, they have enough of it for anyone of them to turn the game around and pull an upset out of the fire.
Originally posted by ekedolphinI think it's premature to compare the '12 team to the '92 team when the Olympics haven't even started yet. Let the '12 team win a gold medal and then I'll compare them.
That shows an incredible lack of vision. Also, this discussion has nothing to do with the competition. Both teams should/did/will win gold easily. That says nothing about how they would fare against each other.
Touche, but it's not like the Big Ten is blowing the ACC out in the tournament. Note that each conference has approximately the same number of wins and losses in the tournament thus far (11-3 and 10-4 I believe).